Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

And Paul Begala for Vice President?

By Chris Suellentrop May 22, 2008 3:04 pmMay 22, 2008 3:04 pm

“Tucker Carlson for president?” That’s the headline at the personal blog for Brendan Nyhan, a former Spinsanity editor who is now a graduate student in political science at Duke. Nyhan says that Carlson, the former “Crossfire” host and former writer for The Weekly Standard, among other magazines, may seek the nomination of the Libertarian Party, according to a rumor making the rounds among delegates to the Libertarian convention, which is being held in Denver this weekend.

Someone is polling the idea, at least. Nyhan links to the blog of Michael Munger, the chairman of the political science department at Duke and the Libertarian Party candidate for governor of North Carolina. Here’s Munger’s description of the phone call he received:

Just got a call from a polling firm.

Checking on Lib Prez candidates. Made sure I was a delegate to the national convention.

Guy asks, “Which of the following candidates do you support for Lib Pres nomination?”
(Reads list, including Barr, Gravel, Ruart, and Root. Also includes Tucker Carlson. I figure that Carlson is just a spoiler; he has never said he’s a Libertarian, and isn’t running for Prez.)

I answer “Undecided,” which is true.

Guy asks, “After that first choice, what is your SECOND choice?”

Stunned for a moment, I pause and say, “Still….undecided.”

Guy says, “Final question: Which of those candidates would you say has true Libertarian values?”

I’m a big tent guy, so I say: “All of them….EXCEPT Tucker Carlson.”

Guy rings off. I am smug, thinking I caught them on their spoiler question.

Except that, Tucker Carlson has apparently decided to think about it. And Carlson may be funding the polling of Lib Nat Conv delegates.

Lew Rockwell, the former congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is hearing the same rumors. “Certainly somebody is polling LP delegates to ask if they would support him,” Rockwell writes on his personal blog.

I call myself a libertarian. I read descriptions of libertarian values and say, yep, that’s the way I believe. (One of the best in my opinion was written by Robert Bartley, former WSJ editor.)

Then I read about (big L) Libertartian candidates and I groan and say, “I don’t support this guy’s positions. This doesn’t sound like a viable alternative to Republicrats.” They usually sound either way too idealistic and naive or like just another dang politican.

So I’m stuck in the chasm between Blues and Reds and I switch my party registration for tactical reasons.

I would love to see a Libertarian candidate who:
a) espouses viable positions for tackling the humongous problems we face,
b) grounds them in libertarian values, and
c) shows the ability and commitment to build bridges across the partisan divide, and transcend the crippling hyper-partisan atmosphere that turns people off Washington these days.

So which of the Lib candidates can do all this? I can be convinced, but until then, I’m going to sit back and enjoy the McCain/Obama debates.

Tucker Carlson for president? I would imagine after sitting around listening to Chris Matthew, Keith Olbermann, wife of the old devil that ran the Federal Reserve for a while, Tim Russert(has become a huge disappointment) and the clown the took Carlson’s place…I could understand his deciding to run against Obama. He must be sick of hearing about the guy AND he was one of the first people many months ago to bring up Rev. Wright. Before all of the networks except Hannity in March, 2007. So give Tucker his due.

Of course Obama was in Florida Friday attempting to convince the Jews of that state that he’s not really going to talk to Iran, Hamas and anybody else he’s said in the past that he would. Don’t you just hate it when people can’t remember their lies? But then that’s what happens when you lie so much it starts to seem like the truth to you I suppose.

Bow ties & hubris? tough combination too beat. If the pursuit of the Lib nomination is a fact, would show that Tucker’s poorly concealed Buchanan envy is showing. Pat may be a nut , but an old school nut.

Yes! Let’s see Tucker Carlson throw his hat in the ring. He’s got nothing better to do since being fired by MSNBC. A debate between Carlson and McCain would be priceless. Anyone who can take even a few votes away from McCain is alright with me.

Before he dropped out of college he was probably that smart-mouth sophomore in the Republican Club that never stopped talking. He’s never been anything more than a Republican talking-points guy on TV. Libertarians are pretty brainy folks; wouldn’t he be a little out of his depth?

There was also a rumor that former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura was going to crash the Libertarian convention and seek the nomination. Neither will happen. There are already 14 candidates and the LP is fixed on 2, Bob Barr and Mary Ruwart. The only person on the face of the earth who could walk into that convention, announce, and get the nomination is Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is a rock star among 3rd party types.

There is a very good reason why Hillary is so divisive, and it is also the same reason why she has such concrete support from her female base. Hillary is a bitter scorned woman who was humiliated on the national stage by her philandering husband. She has an ax to grind with the male population of this country and that is why she is not about to capitulate to Obama. This is the same reason that her supporters will not relent, this core group of women are also bitter at their place in this country and what they have had to go through; Hillary is the perfect vehicle to project this anger. They too have been humiliated by men, feel unappreciated, and have a score to settle. They make this sound like this is about advancing women’s rights, but this is merely an excuse to get some payback. Women tend to harbor grudges much longer than men, and this is their opportunity to feel vindicated. I truly believe this is misplaced, Hillary is not the woman they should choose as their microphone. She has proven time and time again that she will take whatever position benefits her. She has acted as an enabler for unashamed womanizer and sexual predator for decades; never once conceding that these women that Bill used are the exact women she is professing to battle for. While it is understandable that her supporters are hungry for their place at the table, maybe they should more closely examine their Captain Ahab.

Doug sounds more bitter about women than I’ve ever heard Hillary sound about men. Doug, if a woman has given you a hard time or thrown you over just move on and figure you are much better off.

I had a wife that divorced me an remarried right away. Little chapel in Vegas and a big Baptist she was that all she had to do was ask for forgiveness and all would be forgiven. Of course I don’t know what happened on her next divorce and marriage? Point is, get over the problem.

Now having said that I’ve seen several women that men have been married to for years and women raised their kids, stayed home, some of them put their husbands through college and then got the shaft from the husband. Guess what? I don’t find them near as mad as I think they should be. So I have to disagree with your Hillary points. I’m no fan of Hillary and really no fan of Obama and may have to pinch my nose to vote this November. But let’s get our facts straight, and in this case, I don’t think you have any. By the way Doug, life has been so much better without my ex. I only wish it had happened 10 years earlier but it was 30 years ago now and I’m thankful she’s somebody else’s headache now. Look for those silver linings…it only took me about two weeks to find mine.